Death toll in 2006 far overshadows totalU.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, AfghanistanPosted: November 28, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Joseph FarahWASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraqwas said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, mostAmericans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women andchildren – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combineddeath toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those militarycampaigns began. Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research. Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murderedannually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. TotalU.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. TotalU.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during thefive years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according tothe Department of Defense

Butthe carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only afraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a resultof an open border and un-enforced immigration laws. WhileKing reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual deathtoll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001. Whileno one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused byillegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many oflast year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens. Areport by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent offatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license.In California, another study showed that those who have never held avalid license are about five times more likely to be involved in afatal road accident than licensed drivers. Statistically,that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whoselicenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous asdrunk drivers. King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants,in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities heldfewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.Whilethe federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegalalien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studiedillegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons. In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien; Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien; 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before."Whilethe vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard andare only trying to make a better life for themselves and theirfamilies, (something you or I would probably do if we were in theirplace), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage ofillegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states PeterWagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of IllegalImmigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration andwhen we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. Thequestion is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"

Interesting stuff. I often wondered what the statisical history of average deaths among American cvilian males would be for the same demograpic profile of those serving in Iraq. In other words, if those types held civilian jobs here, statistically how many would have died from car crash, accidents, etc.

I'm sure the stats are out ther - I'm just too lazy to look them up. :o)

BTW; I don't agree with Mr. Farah's opening premise that the war tipped the election scales to favor the Dems. While it may have motivated the anti-war peace crown, I rather think that the disgust of conservative voters over fiscally irresponsible Republicans was a bigger factor. They betrayed their base.

Also this: Check out the Dennis Miller clip over at Ace of Spades: Spot on.

Two years ago I checked on the statistics of death for a man of age 20 and found that it was safer for a young man of that age to be in the military and posted out of the country than in the US. It was a statistic I was interested in, because my son was a Marine, then. Car accidents, murders, suicides, drug-related deaths - appalling - were more dangerous than military service in 2004.

Kate said, "Car accidents, murders, suicides, drug-related deaths - appalling - were more dangerous than military service in 2004."

These are just within the last four months, but there's a pattern:

Deputy Steven Cox, 46 was shot in the head early Saturday while interviewing partygoers at a residence in the neighborhood south of Seattle. The gunman, Raymond Porter, was quickly killed in a shootout with other deputies.

Porter, 23, of Burien, had a criminal history dating to 1997, including convictions for drug manufacturing, assault, escape and being a felon in possession of a gun. He had been sentenced to jail or prison nine times and was most recently released from prison in August

Beth Nowak, Nov. 13

Nowak, 30, who had started her Seattle Police patrol beat just two weeks earlier, was driving to work when a man speeding in a stolen Honda crashed into her car. Nowak and the driver of the stolen car, Neal R. Kelley, died instantly.

(At the time, Kelley had a warrant out for his arrest for violating the terms of his probation. Law enforcement officials Monday were outraged that Kelley, 35, who had a criminal record bristling with auto thefts and assaults, wasn't still behind bars.)

Joselito "Lito" Barber, Aug. 13

Barber, 26, who had joined the Seattle Police Department just seven months earlier, was on routine patrol in the Central District when a speeding GMC Yukon ran a red light and collided with his vehicle.

The driver was wanted on arrest warrants for prostitution, DUI, malicious mischief and two thefts.

On April 7, 2005, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminalaliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and localjails. In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens,researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had morethan 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrestsoccurred after 1990. They were arrested for a total ofabout 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses perillegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, afact that explains why there are nearly one and half times moreoffenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrestedfor more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegalaliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. CRIMINAL HISTORY

More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigrationoffense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-sixpercent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4times; and 12%,1 time. Sixty-one percent of thosedefendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%,2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previouslybeen convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violentoffense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previouslybeen convicted of a misdemeanor. Defendants charged withunlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in tenhad been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half hadbeen arrested on at least 5 prior occasions. Fifty-sixpercent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously beenconvicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under halfof those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged withunlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse ofvisas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminalhistories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times.

Sources: US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and CustomsEnforcement, National Security Institute, National Association ofChiefs of Police, US Department of Justice

From the FBI crime statistics* An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, anincrease of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure. * Murder comprised 1.2percent of the overall estimated number of violent crimes in 2005.(Based on Table 1.) * There were an estimated 5.6 murders per 100,000inhabitants.

Interesting stuff. I often wondered what the statisical history of average deaths among American cvilian males would be for the same demograpic profile of those serving in Iraq. In other words, if those types held civilian jobs here, statistically how many would have died from car crash, accidents, etc.

I'm sure the stats are out ther - I'm just too lazy to look them up. :o)(Enscout)

I took a whack at the math last year (see Teleoscope: Dangerous Things) and concluded that one's chances of being killed in Iraq were comparable to ones chances of being killed attending a local community college if one rides a small motorcycle to class and comes home for lunch. (Coming home for lunch doubles your daily commute distance.)

I took a whack at the math last year (see Teleoscope: Dangerous Things) and concluded that one's chances of being killed in Iraq were comparable to ones chances of being killed attending a local community college if one rides a small motorcycle to class and comes home for lunch. (Coming home for lunch doubles your daily commute distance.)/////////////////of course anyone killed in the line of duty in Iraq is a hero. However, anyone killed by an illegal alien in the USA is a fool. ie on the order of someone dying with a UN uniform on.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, flew out of Washington yesterday after informing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his staff that he would be leaving the post after only 15 months on the job, according to U.S. officials and foreign envoys. There has been no formal announcement from the kingdom.

The abrupt departure is particularly striking because his predecessor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spent 22 years on the job. The Saudi ambassador is one of the most influential diplomatic positions in Washington and is arguably the most important overseas post for the oil-rich desert kingdom.

Turki, a long-serving former intelligence chief, told his staff yesterday afternoon that he wanted to spend more time with his family, according to Arab diplomats. Colleagues said they were shocked at the decision.//////////////////////////////////The part they leave out was that Turki was the saudi intelligence chief until one day before 9/11. He resigned from that post on 9/10. The Saudi's intelligence connections with the pakistani isi and their connections to the taliban and al queda makes it unlikely Turki didn't know a significant amount about what was going to transpire the day after he resigned.

He was forced to resign from his US post because his aide said that the saudis would come to the aid of the sunni iraquis in the event the USA pulled out of Iraq. While higher officials also said the same thing, the saudis put the word out that they wanted someone who was more likely to make friends in washington--something Tuki was not likely to do. Why not? well duh. wouldn't it be likely that Turki represented the whole pro taliban/salafist side of the Saudi sunni establishment and the US admin knew it. He is the enemy.

People don't quite understand that most of the US war effort has been against the Sunni salafists for which al queda is the radical wing. And Al queda in Iraq has allied themselves with the bathists. The US has been scoring some major victories against al queda/bathists in the Anbar province in Iraq. The victories are sufficient to so severly weaken the sunnis in what is considered a part of the sunni heart land that the Sunnis are in danger of losing caste first and then their lives to the shias.

So why was the saudi ambassador removed? Clearly the Saudis would prefer not to get involved in Iraq. They would prefer that the US protects the Sunnis there. That would mean that previously, the salafist side of the Saudi establishment would have been quietly working to push the USA out of Iraq--nor would this be anything mysterious to either the Saudis or the US admin.

The saudis would want someone to represent them who was not from the salafist/taliban side of their establishment if they wanted the US to stay in Iraq and protect the sunnis.

The real tell here will be how much reuters, the AP the bbc and sundry european media organizations change their tune as to the rightness of the USA staying on Iraq. Certainly Saudi Sunni money going to Europe is going to be telling Europe to sing a different tune.

If the Middle East were a cancer patient undergoing surgery, the surgeon would open her up, take a grim look, ask for sutures and close. Treat the pain and wait for the inevitable. That is where the analogy ends, because this patient is not going to die. It will kill. The disease will spread and the consequences are incalculable.

The Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker attempts to craft a means for US withdrawal from Iraq. It bases the means on a successful form of Iraqification. That would be possible if there were enough Iraqis willing to fight and die for Iraq. (There certainly seems to be an adequate amount willing to kill.) They would have to believe that Iraq has a future. The evidence that this is so is not encouraging.

Much of the cream of Iraq society has fled the country, with estimates at high as 1.6 million and possibly 300,000 to 500,000 internal refugees. The U.S.-led invasion removed effective governance and to date has not successfully installed or enforced a replacement. At least 60,000 to 80,000 Iraqis have died, most at the hands of other Iraqis. No sane person can believe the situation will improve with the US leaving Iraq abruptly. You can hate Bush for getting us involved in the first place and despise the ineptitude of the occupation but whatever your level of frustration the problem remains.

The problem is no longer restricted to Iraq. It is becoming clearer by the day that Iran has taken sides with the Shiites and Saudi Arabia is now making noises about backing the Sunnis if the US withdraws from Iraq. Powell was at least half correct. We broke it. Time will tell who owns it.

If the US does withdraw from Iraq, the withdrawal would be temporary to the extreme. The reason for the original military involvement with Iraq was the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields. The US and Western dependence on ME oil has not lessened. It has gotten worse. A proxy war between Iranian sponsored Shiites and a Saudi led Sunnis would drag the US back into the fight for no other reason than to provide security for the oil fields and sea-lanes.

The truth is, if the ME had no oil. there would be no US intervention in Iraq. There would have been little interest and notice of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

Two days ago, I posted some out-takes from the second Bush Gore debate. You do not have to be a genius to see that Bush, as did Gore, had a strong predisposition to engage Iraq. Bush did it with a particular relish and without an adequate plan to deal with the internal security problem and that is the essence of the problem, security.

Stripped naked of ideology and politics, Iraq presents a security concern for the area and the world. All the rhetoric about democracy and ideology is useless. The hyperbole about the “War on Terror” and bringing democracy to the Middle East is somewhere between optimistic and delusional. It is politically divisive to potential aliies and threatening to whatever order remains in the area. Bush, like Carter before him should just take advice from Chirac and know when to shut up. No one is buying what he is hawking. They will buy security. You may not like the realpolitik sound to this, but the current mess was created by ideologues who are out of ideas, or at least any that make any sense.

The French, the Germans, Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, China, US and the EU in general all have an interest in security. Call them the coalition of the reluctant. Strip the bark and sapwood off the current mission-impossible and get to the heartwood of security. A plan that restores security can be constructed and enforced. The simple stated goal of "security first" will play. The right American President will have to lead the way to restore security to the Middle East. Bush could do it but he won't. Too bad.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has resigned. The prince reportedly flew out of Washington after informing Condoleezza Rice, and his own staff, that he was leaving, just 15 months after arriving. The Saudi Embassy told the Associated Press that he was "going home to spend more time with his family." Such an excuse may satisfy the immediate requirements of news-agency reporting, but is almost certainly incomplete, and worryingly so. Prince Turki's resignation provides yet another reminder that one of America's most important relationships is laced with surprise and mystery.

At the end of August 2001, the prince resigned as chief of the General Intelligence Directorate, the Saudi CIA, supposedly for apparently similar personal reasons. At the time the CIA and State Department were clueless as to what it meant. The eventual wisdom was that Prince Turki's directorate had become, in the later words of Pulitzer-winner Steve Coll, "a financial black hole." But Prince Turki had also held Saudi Arabia's "Afghan file," making him the principal interlocutor with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. And 10 days later, the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. took place. Bureaucratic Washington, then, will now be intensely interested in finding out exactly why Prince Turki has suddenly decided to leave this time.

Elements of what might be the relevant context are already out in the public domain. Two weeks ago, Nawaf Obaid, a young Saudi who has worked as adviser for Prince Turki both in Washington and in his previous assignment as ambassador in London, authored an op-ed in the Washington Post. While claiming his status as adviser but also saying the opinions were his own, Mr. Obaid wrote that the kingdom was considering "massive . . . intervention [in Iraq] to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

> No sane person can believe the situation will improve with the US leaving Iraq abruptly.

That's why (said with a smile) that no sane person is advocating that we leave "abruptly". The Iraqi Study Group didn't say that. Only some in the very far left of the Democratic party believe in leaving abruptly. The question is whether we change the status quo or keep doing exactly the same thing.

> U.S.-led invasion removed effective governance and to date has not successfully installed or enforced a replacement.

Actually, most of Iraq has peace and effective governance. It is tribal and Shiite/Sunni/Kurd governance instead of central governance but it is there.

Which is why overall peace and central governance could be quickly achieved. All it takes is for the main Iraqi groups to agree to it.

Since the beginning of the war Iraq has moved from a Sunni dictatorship through a period of chaos and now is something like Afghanistan shortly after the Taliban were removed from power. A few "warlords" control most of Iraq, with no effective central government.

Why haven't the Iraqis agreed to a central government yet? Even though both countries have a history of warring tribes, Iraq had the experience of genocide, while Afghans had tolerating each other through negotiations like the Loya Jirga.

Another reason is the same as the next topic:

> That would be possible if there were enough Iraqis willing to fight and die for Iraq.

As our top generals keep telling us, Iraqis are not going to die for their country while we keep doing it for them.

It is the same thing with the overall political agreement, that it is being held up waiting to see what the US does. Each Shiite/ Sunni/ Kurd group is positioning for the final agreement, using the absence or presence of US troops as part of that. The ethnic cleansing which our television lumps in with general terrorism is part of the same thing, preparing for the final political agreement. The groups are trying to get ready for the map to be drawn, with their side the majority population in certain areas.

> The French, the Germans, Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, China, US and the EU in general all have an interest in security. Call them the coalition of the reluctant.

> If the US does withdraw from Iraq, the withdrawal would be temporary to the extreme.

Iraq is a soverign country which has been under foreign occupation for three and half years. Continued occupation is by definition "temporary", which is why bringing in more foreign troops and more foreign countries would be a step in the wrong direction. No matter how many foreign soldiers fight and die in Iraq, peace will only come when the Iraqis agree on how to live together, and begin defending their own country.

A "Plan B" now being floated by Iraqis themselves seems to me a better idea, and has the virtue of presuming (unlike most ideas these days) that we can still largely succeed in Iraq. The idea is to form a coalition of national unity that includes the the largest faction from each of Iraq's three main communities—the Shiite SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq), the Sunni Islamic Party, and the two main Kurdish parties—even if the resulting coalition rests on a parliamentary minority. The idea is to "deputize" the strongest player in each community, and make them a primary political vehicle for laying down the central authority of the state within each community. This will immediately pit SCIRI against the Sadr Organization, on the one hand, and the Islamic Party against the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda, on the the other.

Timed to coincide with the transfer of administrative control of the Iraqi Army to the central government (set to occur by early summer), this could really change things on the ground in Iraq. The violence might continue, but you would have achieved several vital things: (1) the leading party within each community would have declared its first loyalty to the central government; and (2) the central government will finally have a professional force with which to impose its authority; (3) the logic of sectarian conflict now threatening to tear the country apart would be replaced with the logic of intramural conflict (within the Shiite and Sunni communities) between those who support the state's authority and those who oppose it.

Buddy, the problem as I understand it is NC does not keep transcripts of grand jury proceedings, therefore we'll never know the chicanery of this ... this ... this ... [insert Nifong-level adjective here].

I do hear the falsely-accused will be able to sue under so many statutes, including Deceptive Trade Practices - related to Meehan and his lab results in which he withheld the exclusion evidence with intent and purpose.

Wu Wei said...peace will only come when the Iraqis agree on how to live together, and begin defending their own country.

So peace is never going to come, then?

There are no Iraqis; there will never be agreement on living together; there is no country.

Unless there is cultural change.

This is the one thing we are not addressing. No amount of 'institutions', 'constitutions','restituitions', (Jeez, I'm beginning to sound like John Lennon) will fix it. In an honour culture you are either honoured, dead, or have submitted.

Here's a brief extract of how it was done for the Japanese (with thanks to Jihad Watch):

The President and two foreign allies issue an ultimatum that includes these words:

The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the enemy armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the enemy homeland. . . . The time has come for the enemy nation to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought them to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason. . . . Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. . . . There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. . . . Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established. . . .We call upon the enemy to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative is prompt and utter destruction.3

As the article says, it was good for US, and it was good for the Japanese.

My response to W's post In Whose Image was "Do the Numbers". Doing the Numbers for the Iraqis is easy this time, as within the set, all elements are of equal value. The value relativities between US and Iraqi elements are NOT of equal value.

Gerald Vanderleun has some words that preach to the choir here, but warrant our attention. His eloquence has expressed my thinking in a way I could not, as has the work of our good friend Wretchard.

"for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own destruction.

Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."

And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century."

World War II is irrelevant. It is impossible to use the same techniques here.

We already defeated the Iraqi Government and destroyed their military, so it is absolutely impossible for them to surrender like the Japanese.

Japan went down easy but Iraq didn't. The World War II generation had an easier problem to solve, while we have the tougher one. It just isn't as easy as world war II.

Japan had a single military to defeat. Once it surrendered, it kept the population under control, which made US occupation and control easy.

Iraq is a bunch of warring groups. We ended up, in effect, putting the Shiites in control, and they are letting militias ethnic cleanse the country. There are no good guys, no stable government to turn control over to.

The amount of slaughter required to try to make Iraq a Western Christian wouldn't be worth it. Japan attacked the US while Iraq didn't. We would just be seen as evil, with a terrorist backlash causing more 9/11's. We invade a country without cause, then spend years tinkering with its internal politics and trying to make them like us.